← All Phrases

“Section 143(2)”

Section References (mined)Section 143Section 143(2)17,209 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 143(2) is National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT (229 ITR 383), cited in 5,834 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 143(2)

National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT
229 ITR 383 · 1998 · Supreme Court
5,834
citing judgments

Appellate authorities can consider new claims and additional grounds if the relevant facts are already on record. The purpose of assessment is to correctly determine tax liability, allowing both parties to raise issues.

CIT v. Kabul Chawla
380 ITR 573 · 2016 · High Court
3,235
citing judgments

In a search assessment under Section 153A, additions can only be made for completed or non-abated assessment years if incriminating material relevant to those years is found during the search, although notice under Section 153A(1) is mandatorily issued for six assessment years preceding the search.

Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT
243 ITR 83 · 2000 · Supreme Court
2,943
citing judgments

For revision under Section 263, the Assessing Officer's order must be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue; if either condition is not met, the revisionary jurisdiction cannot be invoked. An order is not erroneous merely because the Assessing Officer did not record the details of enquiries conducted, provided due enquiries were made.

CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd.
88 ITR 192 · 1973 · Supreme Court
2,664
citing judgments

When two equally plausible interpretations of a taxing provision are possible, or when conflicting views exist from non-jurisdictional High Courts, the interpretation that favors the assessee must be adopted.

CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd.
38 ITD 320 · 1991 · ITAT
2,267
citing judgments

An appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal can be dismissed for non-prosecution or treated as unadmitted when the appellant fails to appear, cooperate, or show diligence, in accordance with Rule 19(2) of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules. The law aids the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights.

CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd.
313 ITR 340 · 2009 · High Court
2,118
citing judgments

Where an assessee claims that investments were made out of own funds, interest disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D may not apply if the assessee demonstrates the availability of sufficient interest-free funds to cover such investments.

CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.
320 ITR 561 · 2010 · Supreme Court
1,673
citing judgments

An Assessing Officer cannot initiate reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act based on a mere change of opinion. Reassessment is permissible only when there is fresh tangible material leading to the belief of income escapement, not merely a review of existing facts.

CIT v. AIMIL Ltd.
321 ITR 508 · 2010 · High Court
1,629
citing judgments

Employee contributions to PF and ESIC, deposited beyond the due date under the respective Acts but within the due date for filing the income tax return under Section 139(1), are allowable deductions under Section 36(1)(va). Such disallowance cannot be made during processing under Section 143(1).

Judgments citing Section 143(2)

Kony Inc, United States of America vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation 1(2), Chennai, Tamil Nadu

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the stay petition filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 185/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin, CIT
Section 143(2)Section 4

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,‘सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी जॉज" जॉज

Income Tax Officer, Tirunelveli vs. Hemla Trust, Tirunelveli

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 138/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri V. Justin, CITFor Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,‘सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी जॉज" जॉज

Rajagopal Upadhyaya, Bellary vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Bellary

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1984/BANG/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Dan D’Silva, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Dept
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 69A

assessee in protest filed return declaring income of Rs. 3,86,590/- as on 27-20-2013 which was selected for scrutiny under section 143(2) of the Act. 6. The AO noticed that during the course of search at the residence of the assessee, the cash amounting

Ramel Ajit Singh, Navi Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Income Tax Department

In the result, the ground of appeal

ITA 175/MUM/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon’Blems. Padmavathy S, Hon’Ble(Physical Hearing) Ramel Ajit Singh Income Tax Officer, Ward No.28(2)(1), Building No. A6, 3Rd Floor Vashi, Mumbai. Swagat Chs,Plot No. 14 Vs Nerul (W),Navi Mumbai-400706 Maharashtra

Section 139Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 254(1)

Rs.5,87,678/- with Himachal Mitra Mandal Co-op Credit Society. The assessing officer after recording reasons of reopening and serving notice under section 143(2)/ 142 proposed to make addition of such cash deposits by taking view that the assessee has not offered any explanation about the nature

Horizon Dream Homes Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assisstant Commissioner 12(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is partly

ITA 5934/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 14Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 154Section 156Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAJ KUMAR

American Chemical Society, Usa vs. DCIT (International Tax), Circle 1(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1160/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

Section 143(2)Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 148ASection 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 9(1)(vi)

proceedings Initiated by the AO under section 147/148 of the Act for the subject assessment year without issuing the mandatory notice under section 143(2) of the Act are bad in law, without jurisdiction and thus, liable to be quashed. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances

Haresh Mohanlal Patel, Rajkot vs. ITO, Ward-2(1)(4), Rajkot

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed, in about terms

ITA 725/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot07 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Accountatn Member. & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, AR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

ITA No.725/Rjt/2024 A.Y. 17-18 Haresh M Patel IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN

Saharayn Universal Multipurpose Society Limited, Bhopal vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bhopal

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 425/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore07 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 40

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT

Kalu Ram Saini, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1(5), Jaipur

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 222/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A-Bench” JAIPUR Jh xxu xks

Dropti Devi, Behror vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Alawar, Alwar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1223/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vedant Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 194ASection 250

issued. In compliance, the assessee filed her return of income on 31.08.2018 declaring total income of Rs. 2,05,020/-. Notice under section 143(2) of the IT Act was issued to the assessee. Thereafter, the A/R of the assessee attended and furnished written submissions. 3.1 During the assessment proceedings

Thakkar Mukeshbhai Keshavlal, HUF, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Office, Ward-3(3)(5), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1498/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2017-18 Thakkar Mukeshbhai Keshavlal Huf Ito, Ward-3(3)(5) 456, 45Th Floor, Titanium City Centre Vs. Vejalpur, Ahmedabad. Nr.Sachin Tower Satellite Ahmedabad 380 015. Pan : Aaaht 1750 N (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Rupesh R. Shah, Ar Assessee By Revenue By : Smt.Trupti Patel, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/05/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/05/2025

For Respondent: Smt.Trupti Patel, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271ASection 69A

flagged as “abnormal increase in cash deposits during the demonetization period as compared to pre- demonetization period.” In response to statutory notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1), the assessee eventually furnished a written submission, including a stock summary statement, quarterly VAT returns, and a copy of a single

Contai Rotary Community Welfare Trust, Meinipur vs. I.T.O., Ward 1(1), Exemption, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 52/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.52/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Contai Rotary Community Welfare Trust………………………..………….……Appellant Rathtala, P.O. Contai, Dist. Purba Medinipur, W.B. – 721401. [Pan: Aaatc7008C] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Exemption, Kolkata…..……....….….. ……………….........…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Raja Sengupta, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 06, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 07, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.11.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Charitable Trust & Registered U/S 12A Of The Act. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2018-19 By Declaring Nil Income Which Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act. Subsequently, The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass To Examine Certain Issues Particularly The Expenses Claimed Under The Head Of ‘Income From Other Sources’. Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act Was Issued To The Assessee Requiring Submission Of Certain Documents But No Response Was Received. Thereafter, A Notice U/S 142(1) Of The Act Was Issued Calling For Details Of Expenses Claimed U/S 57 Of The Act But The Assessee Again Failed To Respond. Thereafter, The Assessing Officer Issued Reminder To

Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 57

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Rajesh

Midas Golden Distilleries P. Ltd, Sriperumbudur vs. Office of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Nungambakkam

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2955/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2955/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand K Kalakeri, CIT
Section 132Section 132(4)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ‘ए’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI माननीय श्री मनु कुमार धिरर

Akshay Kumar Rungta, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), International Taxation

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per above terms

ITA 66/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyit(It)A No.66/Bang/2024 Assessment Year :2015-16

For Appellant: Shri. Ravishankar S. V, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 147Section 147rSection 148Section 151Section 153Section 153CSection 250

change of opinion. The AO has not discussed in the very basis for the issue of notice for scrutiny under section 143(2) of the Act has not been discussed in the Assessment Order. The AO has not formed any opinion while completing the Assessment. Therefore, it cannot be said ... opinion on the basis of information received from ITD to examine on the same points which were main object of notice under section 143(2) of the Act. it is impossible to hold that Assessing Officer was unaware of involvement in transactions of “Penny stock” made with Kolkata company

Shri. Anantula Vijay Mohan, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1)(1), Bangalore

ITA 2060/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 143(3)Section 250

limited scrutiny' of the Appellant, covering additional issues that were not identified for examination under the scrutiny as per the notice issued under section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ['Act' for brevity]. 2. The learned AO has erred in expanding the scope of limited scrutiny ... Rs.20,24,90,717/-) was offered to tax. 4.1 Thereafter, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and accordingly notice under section 143(2), 142(1) as well as 131 of the Act were issued. In response to notices & summon, the assessee appeared on various dates and filed

Anantula Vijay Mohan, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1)(1), Bangalore

ITA 2059/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Respondent: Sri Padma Khincha, A.R
Section 143(3)Section 250

limited scrutiny' of the Appellant, covering additional issues that were not identified for examination under the scrutiny as per the notice issued under section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ['Act' for brevity]. 2. The learned AO has erred in expanding the scope of limited scrutiny ... Rs.20,24,90,717/-) was offered to tax. 4.1 Thereafter, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and accordingly notice under section 143(2), 142(1) as well as 131 of the Act were issued. In response to notices & summon, the assessee appeared on various dates and filed

Rudresh Ghanshyam Prabhu Tendulkar, Curchorem vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Margao

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 59/PAN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji06 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos.59/Pan/2025 (A.Y.2017-18 ) Rudersh Ghanshyam Prabhu, Ito-Ward-1, Vs Tendulkar, Old Market, . Chodankar Building, Margoa, Curchorem, Goa-403601. Goa-403601. Pan .No.Acypt2802K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By Shri.Prashant Jain.Ar Revenue By Smt.Rijula Uniyal.Sr.Dr

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH PANAJI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI G D PADMAHSHALI

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Vijayawada vs. The Krishna District Milk Producers Mutually Aided Co Op Union Limited, Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 370/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam06 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 80P(2)(d)

total income of Rs.12,05,45,080/- for the A.Y. 2017-18. The case was selected for scrutiny and thereafter notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued from time to time calling for information regarding large value of cash deposited during the demonetization period

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur vs. Karnani Solvex Private Limited, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 850/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 May 2025AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(4)

Central), Jaipur. Notice under section 148 of the IT Act was issued on 29.03.2019 which was duly served upon the assessee. Notice under section 143(2) and 142(1) were issued to the assessee and the same were duly served upon the assessee. On the request of assessee, copy ... after recording reasons for satisfaction and obtaining prior approval of the Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Jaipur. Notice under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the IT Act, 1961 were issued to the assessee and duly served on the assessee. Thereafter, on the request of the assessee, copy

Rajesh Kumar Poonia, Jhunjhunu vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- Jhunjhunu, Jhunjhunu

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 623/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Vedant Agrawal, Adv. (V.C)For Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh, Add. CIT-DR
Section 131Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh